Well, remember these are the same folks who got their panties in a twist when congress and the President responded to Terri Schaivo's desperate parents and siblings. For some reason, you're supposed to side with pro-death family members. If you intercede in their behalf, you're respecting privacy and family integrity. If you stand up for family members who are pushing for life, you're an interfering busybody.
Christina | Homepage | 04.30.05 - 3:49 am | #

Look, this stance is understandable, as such laws increase their liability and cut into their bottom line. After this, other states may pass parental notification laws, and then how could they promote underage sex and cover up statutory rape?

Oh, the humanity! Oh, the loss of revenue!
meep | 04.30.05 - 9:02 am | #

The abortion lobby's motto: The Only Bad Abortion is One That Doesn't Happen.
Christina | Homepage | 04.30.05 - 9:23 am | #

Let's face it, thanatocrats only see intrusion into a family affiar when it comes from the opposition. They don't seem to mind it when they are the ones doing it. Refresh my memory...what's the word for that?
J Rob | Homepage | 04.30.05 - 10:20 am | #

The only people they are fooling are the ones already brainwashed by pro-"choice" propaganda.
Jinx | Homepage | 04.30.05 - 12:44 pm | #

Okay, I wasn't really interested enough to read the entire article, but from what I did read -- and articles about Sanger to which you've linked in the past -- I honestly don't find Sangers ideas to be all that objectionable. Instead of just assuming that we'll agree with you due to kneejerk reactions to the terms you use to describe Sanger's beliefs -- frex, implying that Sanger was an avowed racist, though none of the views attributed to her (that I've read, anyway) strike me as being overtly or necessarily racist -- why not give an argument detailing exactly why you take issue with her belief that society might be improved if those who (apparently) possessed certain negative traits were prevented from passing their flaws on to another generation? I mean, most of the people here agree with you anyway, but it'd make for a more insightful post if you analyzed and rejected her views in a more in-depth manner.

For my part, I'll admit that her emphasis on genetics is a bit problematic, but the idea that people who cannot afford to provide for their children should not have them makes a lot of sense to me.
Wes | Homepage | 05.01.05 - 1:30 am | #

Ha! ha! wes very funny
Rhys | 05.01.05 - 5:57 am | #

What happened the last time someone tried preventing those who (apparently) possessed certain negative traits from passing their flaws on to another generation?

"Those who are physically and mentally ill must not perpetuate their suffering in the bodies of their children." Which was said by the obvious person to tar Sanger.

"Planned Parenthood" is its current name. It used to be the American Birth Control League. It changed its name during WWII.

Prior to that time, it had avowed Nazi supportors on its board. It published in its magazine an article by a Nazi -- and not merely a Nazi, but the head of Nazi Germany's eugenics program.
Mary | 05.01.05 - 10:42 am | #

In additional thoughts to this post, if you read the Abortion Clinic Days blog, the attitude of the abortion clinic workers and pro-choice supporters is that of "responsible parenting", that is the belief teens, minorities, and impoverished should have an abortion as a cure to societies ills.
Rachael | Homepage | 05.05.05 - 3:42 pm | #